Ds aktiv bedeutet patchy paul 2

Swingerclub mallorca zeichen trick porno

Wichsmaschine scharfe nutten

Swinger blasen vom masseur gefickt

The Member State should notify the EU Council and both parties will conclude an agreement setting the arrangements and further relation between the country and the Union.

After the Member State gives notice of its withdrawal, there is a two-year term for the treaties of the Union to cease their effects, unless the parties reach an agreement before the two-year term. However, this term might be extended by both parties. Regarding copyright protection, a Brexit would not have any major consequences, since copyright protection is not fully harmonized in the EU as it is. Further, copyright protection is mainly territorial and the UK is member to several International Treaties that cover copyright, thus they it would keep applying their national laws based on international minimum standards of protection.

First, it is worth highlighting that the protection of national Patents as well as national Trademark registrations would of course remain unchanged. However, obtaining UK approval for the agreement on a Unified Patent Court might prove to be a challenge, since a Brexit would very likely slow down the implementation of the UPC.

Further, supplementary protection certificates for medicinal products are regulated by EU regulation N. An applicant could of course still file an EU application but would additionally have to file a separate national UK application. Moreover, according to Article Furthermore, a Brexit would necessitate transitional provisions for current EU Trademark and Designs registrations for converting these rights into national UK rights, if the owner wishes to maintain protection of such rights in the UK.

Further, it would have to be decided if their rights once converted into national UK rights will keep their EU filing date. For now, IP owners should simply be aware that if a Brexit happens -they might face consequences with regard to the protection of their UK IP rights and that they may further have to take additional measures if they want to maintain their IP rights.

Until a decision has been made, we can of course not give comprehensive advice on how to proceed, but can only point out the potentially controversial issues. We will of course look into these issues in more detail once the corresponding decisions have been made. Download the PDF article here. This was a great opportunity for our team and clients to get together and enjoy food, drinks and a beautiful show. We kicked off the INTA meeting with a fun and adventurous evening observing the alligators, bobcats, raccoons and other wild animals.

Guests had the opportunity to enjoy the natural attractions while experiencing the excitement of being on an airboat. This was the perfect way to relax and have fun before starting INTA. Dennemeyer will have a booth at the event. The Dennemeyer Group organizes a complementary workshop for everyone interested in the future Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court.

Our expert speaker will share the latest developments with you and present some interesting case studies. After the workshop, we invite you to further discuss this topic with your colleagues and network over a drink.

Did you have to read that twice? On April 14, , Dr. In this webinar you will discover three key items:. Watch the recorded, on-demand webinar today. Simply watch this short webinar to discover how. Besides we have prepared a special cinematic highlight for you — of course not without a decent amount of popcorn!

After the show test your IP knowledge in our daily Dennemeyer IP Quiz championships and win exclusive prizes for your family at home. If you would like to arrange a meeting with our experts or a demonstration of our software tools or online portals before the conference, please contact us at inta dennemeyer.

Starting April 11 th your knowledge power will be tested in two parallel rounds one for each category and the two leading players of Patents and Trademarks will compete in the Final Battle, which will be a combination of both categories, at the end of May. Win the battle and the iPad is yours! Come and play at: Since he was the first US President to visit this mother country of cigars and rum. However, the arguably most powerful man on earth was only an opening act.

On 25 March, the Rolling Stones played their first ever concert in Havana. One takeaway is that US Presidents come and go - but the Stones stay forever. Another crystal clear message is that Cuba is opening-up. Exporting companies should therefore start rethinking about their Intellectual Property strategy for the Cuban market. The first question is of course which protective IP rights are available in Cuba. We at Dennemeyer have long-standing contacts with our colleagues in Cuba and are looking forward to play a part in the improvement of the economic relations with Cuba, with our focus in this regard being of course Intellectual Property.

But we will also keep monitoring other developments on Cuba. Rumor has it that Sir Paul McCartney will be the next music legend to pay a visit to the Island for a gig. Check out our webinar to find out more about the upcoming changes to trademark protection in Cuba and Iran. For businesses today it is critical to safeguard sensitive data against the growing number of online and natural threats. For data security, the operative words are confidence and transparency. Dennemeyer remains dedicated to security and takes extensive technical measures to protect client data when managing intellectual property portfolios.

Due to the importance of the topic Dennemeyer will keep on publishing news and articles on data security and keep you informed. In this role he will also be the contact person for all media inquiries. The mainstays of professional services and software solutions for the management of patents and trademarks will in future be supplemented in particular by business ventures including consultancy and seminars on intellectual property.

Previously he had worked as an independent journalist for media including the Bavarian broadcaster Bayerischer Rundfunk and the Munich-based broadsheet Süddeutsche Zeitung. After graduating in economic and social history and communication science, Sebastian Deck trained as an editor at the German School of Journalism in Munich, combining this with postgraduate studies in Practical Journalism at Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich. The workshops took place in Warsaw in the Sheraton hotel. At the first part of the workshops, Ms.

Afterwards, participants were divided into two groups representing two different companies interested in extending their current activity, but their peaceful existence in the European market was not possible without prior coexistence agreement conclusion. Although at the beginning it seemed impossible to reach an agreement in this regard, we are happy to inform that after a long and difficult discussion both groups managed to sign a coexistence agreement satisfactory for both sides.

We received positive feedback from participants who especially appreciated the possibility to actively participate in the discussion.

The Forums feature panel discussions and explore and discuss best practices for managing IP costs. Hear real world experiences from leading companies on how they have managed their IP budgets. These complimentary events are approved for 3. Space at each location is very limit.

Learn more and reserve your spot today. This move signals the rapid growth experienced over the past year. The new address is W.

Madison, Suite , Chicago IL This growth is projected to continue throughout Should you have any questions on the relocation, please feel free to contact us. We look forward to seeing and serving you at the improved office surroundings.

The new legislation enters into force on 23 March In order to avoid inadequate scope of protection, the owners of the above categorized trademarks have been given a possibility to file a declaration to the Office by 24 September , specifying the exact goods and services intended to be covered by that application.

If no Declaration is filed before the deadline, those trademarks will be deemed to cover only the goods and services described in the literal meaning of the class heading.

Please do not hesitate to contact us at: Do you know the costs of publishing a European patent validation in Morocco? Since the beginning of March , European patents can be validated in Morocco according to the agreement between the European Patent Organisation and the government of the Kingdom of Morocco. But the exact fees for the publication of a validation have not been published by the EPO until now. As leading provider of professional services and solutions for the IP sector, Dennemeyer has found out the publication fee prior to its official publication.

As a result of the Iran nuclear deal signed last year, economic sanctions on the Middle-Eastern country have been lifted on January 16, Governmental authorities and industry organizations were quick to welcome this step in opening up the Iranian economy to international trade and investment.

For example, the German-Iranian Chamber of Commerce and the European-Iranian Business Alliance released statements expressing their hope that business relations with Iran will be flourishing again in the future.

With the start of a hopefully new and long-lasting period of good business relations with Iran, exporting companies should start rethinking about their intellectual property strategy for the Iranian market.

The first question is of course which protective IP rights are available in Iran. We at Dennemeyer have a long-standing relationship with our colleagues in Iran. Furthermore, we have experienced that centralized formalities procedures, especially with regards to notarization, can help clients move forward their IP projects almost everywhere and in fact in Iran.

During the sanctions, we helped clients, some of them U. With these recent developments in mind, we are looking forward to playing our part in normalizing the economic relations with Iran, with our focus being of course the field of intellectual property.

For further information and help, please feel free to contact me via e-mail: In December we pledged to donate 1 euro for every correct answer submitted in our IP Quiz. Thanks to the overwhelming response we received from players, we have made a donation totaling 15, euros to the German office of Doctors Without Borders. The donated amount was handed over on January 12, in the presence of Dr. Doctors Without Borders was represented by Andrea Stegmeir, who shared with us her first-hand experience helping those in need in Angola.

Doctors Without Borders is an international humanitarian organisation providing assistance to vulnerable communities, victims of natural disasters and armed conflicts. Every year Doctors Without Borders sends around 2, doctors, nurses, logisticians, water-and-sanitation experts, administrators and other professionals to work alongside approximately 31, locally hired staff.

Together they run medical projects in more than 60 countries around the world. The organisation spent million euros on humanitarian activities in ; performing over 8 million outpatient consultations, aiding over thousand severely malnourished children, and performing over 81, major surgical interventions. We are truly overwhelmed by the amazing response we received from our fellow industry professionals, and would like to thank everybody who played the IP Quiz over December.

Below are 12 costly and commonly shared trade mark misunderstandings. Not all trade marks are created equal. To evaluate the strength of a proposed mark, it is critical to understand that trade marks are viewed within a spectrum of distinctiveness. A trade mark may be compartmentalised into four main categories: On one end of the distinctiveness spectrum, generic terms are common words that name goods or services; these are incapable of functioning as trade marks.

Registration of a generic term would prevent others from rightfully utilising the common word and serve no source identification function. Moving up the band, a mark is considered merely descriptive if the primary significance of the term immediately describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, feature, function or purpose of the specifically delineated goods or services.

Although adopting a descriptive mark simplifies marketing efforts by conveying features of the product or service to the purchaser, it also presents hurdles at both the registration and enforcement stages. Common examples of descriptive marks include Arthriticare for arthritis medication , Car Freshener for car deodoriser , and World Book for encyclopedias.

Suggestive trade marks indirectly refer to the goods or services with which they are associated. The mark requires an intellectual leap, imagination, thought or perception in order for the consumer to reach a conclusion as to the nature of the goods or services.

For example, Coppertone for tanning lotion and Chicken Of The Sea for tuna are considered suggestive marks. Traditionally, marketing professionals prefer suggestive marks due to their inherent ability to evoke ideas in the minds of consumers, suggesting the nature of the goods or services offered.

By subconsciously linking a mark to a product or service, this approach enhances brand awareness while reducing costs associated with marketing campaigns. However, a fine line separates descriptive and suggestive trade marks. What a marketer may deem suggestive, the examining attorney may find descriptive.

D Arbitrary or fanciful: Finally, arbitrary or fanciful marks are afforded the broadest scope of protection. An arbitrary mark is a word that exists but has no meaning when used on the product itself, whereas a fanciful mark is a word not recognised by the dictionary. For instance, the marks Pepsi and Exxon are deemed fanciful because they have no meaning or common usage.

Alternatively, Apple used in connection with computers is considered an arbitrary mark because it is a known term used in an uncommon fashion. For instance, other companies may own common law rights that compromise the value and availability of a trade mark. Common law rights arise from actual use of a mark in commerce even absent federal registration. Although federal registration affords additional rights that are unavailable under the common law scheme, rights still develop without registration.

These limited rights are cabined to the geographic area in which the mark is used. Within that specific territory, rights are based on the priority of use of a mark. Occasionally, a federal registrant may not be the first user of a trade mark in a specific territory; therefore, an unregistered prior user may enjoy superior rights. Thus, when applying for a trade mark, even a company with common law rights may file an opposition based on first use in commerce. Further, if the USPTO has deemed a trade mark cancelled or abandoned, that designation does not ensure that your agency may use the mark without complications.

A mark may be deemed cancelled or abandoned for a bundle of reasons. As stated above, trade mark rights continue at the common law level if a company continues to employ their mark in commerce. There are many sources in addition to the USPTO, such as common law sources, state trade mark registries and industry publications.

Read the full article as PDF. Our international team of patent and trademark attorneys is admitted to practice before the Patent and Trademark Offices of several additional European and non-European jurisdictions e. As a well-reputed and reliable intellectual property partner for multinational corporations and small and medium sized companies across industries for more than 55 years, the jury has recognized our pan-European footprint and our ability to deliver accurate and top-tier legal services to our European and non-European clients.

The proposed reformed rules for Community trademarks are currently under discussion by the European Parliament. The Community trademark CTM was created 15 years ago and has remained substantially unchanged. A draft text for the reform was prepared and in April the European Parliament, Commission and Council reached an agreement.

The changes are being reviewed by the parliament again, but substantial changes to the last version of the text are not likely. The reform is expected to come into force in the second quarter of All country members of the EU will then have three years to transpose the changes. Trademark applicants and the attorneys representing them will have to get used to a new terminology. The applicants for trademarks in only one class will now pay less: However, the costs will now be higher if a trademark applicant wants to protect its trademark in three classes: Concerning the conditions of registrability of a trademark in the EU, the concept of graphical representation has been removed from the conditions of an EUTM.

This opens the doors to the protection of non-conventional trademarks, in particular sounds and smells. In accordance with OHIM and other national offices, the UK Intellectual Property Office IPO held that listing the headings for a class amounted to claiming protection for the entire alphabetical list of goods and services in that class, even though not all of them were explicitly listed and some were not even covered by the literal meaning of the class headings.

Deviating from the previous jurisdiction, the CJEU decided in this case that goods or services for which protection is sought must be identified with sufficient clarity. It held that on this basis alone, one must be able to determine the extent of the protection conferred by a trademark. Moreover, it established that some class headings can indeed properly be used to identify goods and services, as they themselves are sufficiently clear and precise.

However, for other class headings, this is not applicable. When using class headings, the applicant can indicate that it wants the registration to cover all the goods and services included in the full alphabetical list if it wishes. If it does not wish to include all the goods and services, it is obliged to specify the particular goods and services it seeks protection for. In the scope of this reform, the decision was made that all trademark owners that filed a CTM application before June 22 will have six months following the entry into force of the new regulations to file a declaration at OHIM stating for which goods and services under the class heading they want to obtain protection.

Trademark owners must proceed with this modification and declaration as soon as possible. The additional protection potentially provided by the modification of the list of goods and services will not be retrospective. Owners that modify their list of goods and services in these conditions will not be able to prevent any third party from using a trademark in relation to goods and services where and to the extent that:.

For a French trademark attorney, the obligation on the countries to adopt administrative cancellation proceedings is new. At the moment, in France—unlike in Germany and the UK—there is no administrative proceeding to act against a trademark registration on the basis of its non-use. France, and other similar countries, will now have to adopt a new administrative proceeding. This new procedure must be implemented in the next seven years. Also, counterfeit goods-in-transit will now be considered as infringing the trademark of the owner.

Click here to read the full article. We wish to inform you that recently we saw a sharp increase of fraudulent messages posing as coming from Dennemeyer, requesting information or wire transfer of certain amounts to third-party bank accounts. While the message, sender and e-mail signature may look identical to legitimate communication you received previously from us, the actual reply-to address does not belong to the sender. Additionally, there might be spelling mistakes in addresses such as de n emeyer or dennemeyer r.

Unfortunately this is not an isolated issue in corporate communications, however it is the first time we have been affected by it. More information about such scams, and ways to counteract them can be found under:. As far as our communications are concerned, we ask you to call your Dennemeyer contact immediately in case of any suspicion.

We are doing everything we can to stop these fraudulent e-mails, however there is no technical way to overcome this issue. We trust your vigilance. E-mail fraud is a serious issue that affects a large number of corporations.

In order to avoid being a target of cybercrime, please take all the necessary actions to secure your IT infrastructure. Charlie is surprised by the call from his procurement department asking about the trademark renewal service. He has been working with the same service provider for years and he is happy with their performance.

Plus, Charlie is paying for an unneeded level of renewal service. Charlie feels, well, embarrassed. This webinar dives into the cost components of a trademark renewal and breaks down actual renewal invoices to reveal what companies are actually paying. After this webinar, you will be poised to evaluate your trademark renewal costs. The Official Fee is charged by each Patent and Trademark Office to renew the trademark and does not vary by provider.

The Agent Fee is highly variable for two reasons. First, each provider has a set of jurisdictions that they pay directly, thus eliminating agent fees for that jurisdiction. Second, even if two providers both pay through an agent in a jurisdiction, the fee can vary significantly. The Service Fee is the stated fee the renewal provider charges for conducting the service. This fee varies based on the nature of the renewal service and varies by portfolio size.

Typically, people focus on the service fee. Interestingly, other charges can have a larger impact on the renewal cost. Dennemeyer provides tiered service options that you can choose from regardless of portfolio size. Your choice to match your needs. Many renewal providers mark up their exchange rates above the prevailing interbank exchange rate. These can vary wildly from one renewal provider to the next. Typically, this markup is to cover currency acquisition costs. However, some providers pad this percentage to increase profit margins.

Various countries require notarization and legalization of renewal documents. This can be expensive and fluctuates by provider. Want to know more? This example is hypothetical and is used for marketing purposes. Any similarity to an actual situation is unintended. Not all trademark renewal providers charge foreign currency markups. According to the decision, PBP claims can be used only when it is impossible or unrealistic to define the product itself without using the process to obtain it at the time of application.

In this case, the scope of the claims should be interpreted to include products produced, not only by the process recited in the PBP claims, but also products obtained by any other process.

In Japanese practice, the applicant can choose to use PBP claims when he believes it is inappropriate to define the product without using the process, even when the product can be defined without doing so. When interpreting the scope of the PBP claims, there have been two types of interpretation.

One is that the scope of a PBP claim Product A which is obtained by a process X covers any products irrelevant to the process to obtain it; this is called Product-based-interpretation. The other one is that a PBP claim covers only the product A which is produced by exactly the recited process X; this is called Process-based-interpretation.

At the examination stage, the PBP claims are interpreted based on Product-based-interpretation. That is, if the product A itself is not novel, the claimed product A is not patentable even if the process defined in PBP claims it is new and inventive.

On the other hand, when judging the infringement of the PBP claims, there are case laws that adopt both Product-based-interpretation and Process-based-interpretation to define the scope of the PBP claims. However, for some new products, it might be difficult or impossible to define the product itself without using the process to obtain the product at the time of application.

Only in such cases, the scope of the PBP claim may be interpreted to include the product independently of the process to obtain it. The patentee must prove the fact that it was difficult or impossible to define the claimed product A without using the process X to obtain it at the time of application if he wants broader protection without the limitation of the process to obtain the claimed product.

The Grand Panel also ruled that this criterion should also be applied to the examination procedure. Based on this criterion, the Grand Panel concluded that the TEVA did not prove that it was difficult or impossible to define the claimed product A without using the process X at the time of the application.

Exceptionally, the scope can be broadened to the claimed product, irrelevant to the process to obtain it, when it is difficult or impossible to define the claimed product without using the process at the time of the application. The scope of the patent of a product claim should cover all the products which have the same structure, physical properties, etc.

PBP claim defines an invention of a product itself, though the product is defined by a process to obtain it. Therefore, the scope of the PBP claims should be interpreted in the same way as for the other claims relating to a product, namely to cover products which have same structure, physical properties, etc.

On the other hand, it is necessary that the structure, physical properties, etc. Otherwise, a third party cannot properly judge the scope of the claimed invention and thus they may suffer unpredictable prejudice. If it is difficult or impossible for the skilled person to understand the scope of the claimed product, such a claim should be regarded as unclear.

In this regard, when a product is defined by the process to obtain it, it is usually difficult for the skilled person to understand what structure, physical properties, etc. Therefore, PBP claims will be rejected since they are not clear. However, there is a case where it is impossible or unrealistic to define the product itself without using the process to obtain it at the time of application.

In such a case, defining the product by the process to obtain it should be admitted, i. Therefore, the case has been sentenced to be sent back to the IPHC for further examination. Based on the Supreme Court decision, it will be re-examined whether the product manufactured by Kyowa has the same structure, physical properties, etc.

Therefore, if TEVA cannot prove that it was impossible or unrealistic to define the product without using the process to obtain it at the time of application, this patent may be revoked due to lack of clarity. In order for the PBP claims to be kept in the examination procedure, the JPO examiner will, in principle, raise an objection for clarity and the applicant will need to prove that it was impossible or unrealistic to define the product itself without using the process to obtain it at the time of application.

Until then, the examiner will issue an office action for all the applications, including PBP claims, in order for the applicant to have an opportunity to amend claims or to argue the validity of using PBP claims.

Now, in order for the PBP claims to be maintained, it is necessary for the applicant to prove that it was impossible or unrealistic to define the product itself without using the process to obtain it at the time of application. To answer the above question, Dennemeyer is hosting a complimentary webinar on November 19, at 1: Of course, this question is rather facetious.

We know that cost transparency is important. Low service fees rarely translate into lower patent annuity costs. Other fees and opaque charges obscure the picture. Uncovering the actual costs of patent maintenance is increasingly important as budgets get squeezed and accountability is stressed. A lack of clarity can lead to misunderstandings, which in turn lead to the courts.

This webinar will address the issues associated with industry transparency, although it will not discuss any particular litigation. The complimentary webinar will be held on November 19, , at 1: Join us to peel back the curtain and learn how to analyze annuity payments accurately to ensure you get the best value.

Once you understand how annuity services are priced, you can understand the value you receive from your patent annuity service provider. Then, you have the knowledge to move forward and take appropriate action. The webinar will support you as you create an accurate cost-benefit portfolio analysis for future growth. Pharmaceutical trademark owners in Australia should carefully select and register their marks to minimise potential problems associated with including INNs or INN stems, as Geordie Oldfield of Dennemeyer explains.

In Australia, the selection and registration of pharmaceutical trademarks requires special attention. Examiners are much more likely to object to a trademark based on likelihood of causing deception or confusion if the application covers pharmaceuticals or related products. Furthermore, the increasingly crowded state of the trademark register mandates careful management.

Nevertheless, consideration of the manner in which pharmaceuticals are distributed and sold can assist pharma trademark applicants in paving a path to registration and use in Australia. When selecting a pharma trademark for registration in Australia, it is crucial to consider whether the mark is, or contains, an international nonproprietary name INN , or an INN stem. An INN is in effect the generic name for a substance.

Paracetamol is an example of an INN. The INN programme also guides the use of word stems which are given to pharmacologically related substances.

Concerning the last criterion, the office originally considered a stem not meaningful enough only if it formed part of an ordinary English word. Following some disquiet in the attorney profession and formal hearings to consider some applications with section 43 INN stem objections, the office changed its INN stem examination policy. A ATMO hearing decision involving Boehringer Ingelheim suggests that where most of the third to sixth factors are present, a section 43 objection should not apply.

The process adopted by the office is relatively formulaic and therefore straightforward for examiners to execute. It is worth noting, however, that an Australian court has yet to consider circumstances in which an INN stem renders a pharma trademark likely to deceive or cause confusion. Information in the publication will sometimes assist in formulating arguments against a section 43 objection.

For example, in respect of some stems, the publication:. Over time, the United States has gradually granted trademark protection to additional non-traditional elements or devices that serve as source identifiers for particular goods and services.

The Qualitex court granted trademark protection to colour after it decided that colour in that particular instance had acquired secondary meaning in the market. In a market that is accelerating towards saturation, creative brand owners are continually searching for novel means to identify and safeguard their brands. In order to register a non-traditional mark on the Principal Register, the registration requirements for a standard application apply. The mark must be distinctive and serve as an indicator of source, and a proper drawing except for sensory marks and specimen of use must be provided.

However, while registrable in theory, non-traditional marks undergo substantial scrutiny and unique impediments during the examination phase of the trademark application process.

Although every type of trademark poses different complications for registration, non-traditional trademarks face two common issues: In order to be registrable on the Principal Register, a mark must be distinctive and serve to identify a particular source of the goods or services.

While some types of mark can be inherently distinctive through their intrinsic source-identifying nature, others must acquire distinctiveness before they are entitled to registration.

A mark may acquire distinctiveness when consumers begin to associate it with a particular seller over time. The amount of evidence required to satisfy the burden of acquired distinctiveness depends on the nature of the trademark and the character of the evidence. Over time, a non-traditional mark may acquire secondary meaning if consumers begin to associate it with a single source. Accordingly, evidence of acquired distinctiveness may be either direct eg, consumer surveys or indirect eg, promotional materials.

The functionality doctrine also acts as an obstacle during the examination stage of a non-traditional mark application. This can occur when the examining attorney concludes that the mark is utilitarian or aesthetically functional.

Under the utilitarian test, a mark is functional when it is essential to the purpose or use of the product or affects the cost or quality of the product. Alternatively, a mark may also be denied registration when it is deemed aesthetically functional. Aesthetically functional features do not contribute to the utilitarian function, but their appearance or ornamentation contributes to consumer demand for a product.

Most importantly, the determination that a proposed mark is functional constitutes an absolute bar to registration on either the Principal or Supplemental Register, regardless of evidence showing that the proposed mark has acquired distinctiveness. If an applicant is filing a trademark application that consists solely of colours employed in connection with specific goods or services, it must submit a drawing that displays the mark in colour, as well as:.

Colour marks cannot be categorised as inherently distinctive and applicants seeking to register a colour must satisfy the high burden of proving secondary meaning. In order to navigate these registration requirements, applicants must attach Section 2 f -based evidence demonstrating distinctiveness.

When reviewing Section 2 f evidence to determine whether a single colour has acquired distinctiveness, the USPTO will look at factors such as duration of use, promotion of the colour in advertising, consumer recognition of the colour as a mark and use of colour by competitors. Although difficult to clear, many colour marks have passed for registration by satisfying these requirements.

For the Principal Register, sound marks must be unique or distinctive. Sound marks must be used in a way that registers in the subliminal mind of the hearer — the listener must be able to recall the mark later on a subsequent hearing in a manner that signals that a certain product or service is associated with a specific source.

As with a more visually perceptible type of mark, a sound can be utilised as a source indicator; thus, the mark need not be in graphic form.

Therefore, a distinction must be made between distinctive sounds and those that resemble commonplace sounds. Commonplace sounds made in the normal course of operation may be registered only when supported by evidence that purchasers identify the sound and associate it with a single source. Registration of a sound mark requires the submission of a detailed description of the mark.

Applicants should also submit a specimen in audio form. Further, commonplace sounds require proof of acquired distinctiveness, whereas inherently unique or distinctive sound marks need no additional showing of secondary meaning. In order to celebrate our latest office opening in Brazil , we kicked off AIPPI with a morning cruise on Brazil's only remaining ship that served in World War One, followed by a lunch in Confeitaria Colombo, a splendid restaurant boasting over years of history.

Reborcador Laurindo Pitta was built in in Great Britain. Until as recently as the 's she remained part of the Brazilian Navy.

During our tour of the Guanabara Bay on board the Laurindo Pitta, we had the opportunity to not only discover the rich history of the ship, but to also enjoy a panoramic view of Rio de Janeiro. As many sailors would agree, a day at sea has a noticeable effect on one's appetite. After disembarking in Rio's old town, a light lunch was served in one of the most recognizable restaurants in Rio's old town: Confeitaria Colombo, opened in the late s.

And although times have changed, the marble countertops, the furniture and the stained glass ceiling still paint a vivid picture of what a good life must have been like at the beginning of the century. For our 90 guests, as well as for our team participating at AIPPI, this morning event was the first encounter with this vibrant city.

And judging from the half sentences we picked up during the cruise and stroll around the old town, it left many hungry for more. Finally, we would like to thank Mr. Known to have a passion for photography in addition to being an accomplished European and Latvian patent, trademark and design attorney , he was kind enough to act as our official event photographer.

Click here to see more photos from the event. As of September 28, , it is possible to file trademark applications in Canada with goods and services voluntarily grouped and classed according to the Nice Classification. The provision of Nice classes remains voluntary for now, since the proposed legislative changes relating to the classification of goods and services according to the Nice Agreement contained in Bill C are not yet in force. It is also important to note for now that the Trademarks Office will not grant extensions of time to allow the applicant to amend the application to include Nice classes.

In October we hosted events in three major German cities to exchange information about the latest developments in the IP industry. Brazil is the world's fifth largest country, having one of the world's fastest growing economies. In addition to said services, clients will also benefit from any other of the sophisticated IP products and services offered by the Dennemeyer Group: The new office will be headed by Claudio M. From to , Claudio M. Since to date, he has represented foreign and BR applicants before the Brazilian Patent Office, providing legal guidance in the obtainment of patents, trademarks and enforcement in other Latin American countries also.

Szabas to the Dennemeyer family. With the establishment of our new office in Rio de Janeiro we are committed to serve Mr. In the multifaceted trademark world, you may think your trademark renewal vendor meets your needs and has a robust plan, but is this true?

Imagine your renewal service as a blank page in your IP coloring book; how you examine it will fill the colors in and build a vibrant trademark operation.

Each company and trademark team has different needs, but renewal services are one-size-fits-all. The typical service is a single model that bases the price on the number of trademark records. If you need less services then offered, the price ussually stays the same.

Maybe some minor modifications. Ask your vendor what options they have to reduce the level of services they offer if any and understand the impact on price. Then, create a list of your internal processes and map this to the reduced services offered. This one-to-one process map helps to clearly identify required areas of support and a better understanding of what you may not need. Then, you may have an opportunity to drop unneeded service options.

It comes with a standard set of processes and procedures. There is flexibility, but with the flexibility comes additional cost. The mapping process helps determine what additional functions are needed, if any. Many may find that they can adjust their internal processes to make the Standard offering work and deliver significant cost savings in the process. You are ecstatic to sign on for an incredibly low renewal rate and expect significant savings.

However, somehow, the savings never seem to materialize. The renewal vendor may offer a fantastic per record rate and obscure other charges. For example, do you often require an assignment change at the time of renewal? Does the renewal vendor do this and if so, is there a cost? What do they charge you to notarize a document? What do they charge for a courier?

When you couple this examination with Link 1, the service itself, your coloring page is over half full of brilliant details. Each vendor, firm, and company will have their own agent network, but what are their strengths? How do you know an agent in Country X provides the best rate?

Direct filing is always the best as it eliminates the agent fee, and for the rest, a reliable agent network is vital. What are their agent requirements? How do they hold them accountable and to what standards? Dennemeyer will allow you to continue to use your existing foreign agent network, but doing so is often more expensive than renewing through their network. Lag in updates for legal changes across jurisdictions or increase in the official fees.

Are you being proactive? For example, what changes go into effect in the British Virgin Island September ? It is more time effective to relieve your internal group and outsource this activity to your vendor. However, your vendor must not lag in tracking or communicating jurisdiction changes and requirements.

How often do they provide an update? How or when will they communicate? Though this last link is the most fluid, by giving pre-consideration to an often overlooked area, your trademark renewal coloring page is now complete.

A brilliant coloring page is hard to fill in. But, when you scrutinize vendors against these four weak links, you will be armed with the intelligence needed to make the right choice. Interested in comparing services to see how much money you are leaving on the table? In , biotechnology was one of the three technological fields in which patent applications filed at the European Patent Office EPO grew the fastest.

An increase of As these applications are substantially examined by the office for patentability, often problems with patentability are encountered. Some of these problems, as well as possible solutions, are discussed herein. For example, in the past, the question arose whether the exclusion of essentially biological processes also precludes patents directed to plants or plant material such as fruit.

This question is particularly relevant for a scenario in which the only available method for generating such plants or plant material is actually an essentially biological process. Another problem in this context is how the plants or plant materials can be described in a patent application, specifically in cases where they are predominantly characterized by their way of production. This is because an indirect description of a product by virtue of its synthesis or production method is often not allowed in patents.

Additionally, biotechnology is a cutting-edge technology. Cutting-edge means that new production methods and analytical tools for monitoring them are continuously developed. Patent examiners however, might not be aware of the very latest developments in that technical field. The Board has recently ruled that the exclusion of essentially biological processes does not preclude the grant of a patent claim directed to a plant obtained in such a process. This is contrary to some national patent laws in Europe.

Accordingly, applicants who intend to obtain a patent for such plants in Europe should be aware that the best way of doing so is by filing their patent applications at the European Patent Office. Further, according to the Board, the patentability exclusion does not extend to so called product-by-process patent claims.

Such product-by-process claims are a way of indirectly defining a biotechnological invention, e. Product-by-process claims must be carefully worded; however, they are a way out of the dilemma that an indirect product description in a patent is potentially not allowable, but would be factually necessary.

The patent applicant should consider how to best phrase their patent claims in order to solve the problem in this manner. Where this is not possible, referring to manuals or textbooks can be of help.

The best way forward is a detailed description of the parameters, production methods, and analytical methods in the patent application itself and preferably in the patent claims. When filing patent applications for biotechnological inventions, the inventor should make sure that the application is drafted and filed with a view to problems and solutions the application may face upon examination. When doing so, patents for biotechnological inventions may well be granted.

So yes, biotechnology is patentable when done carefully. This article originally appeared in Going Public Magazine , published in September Duell, who was the Commissioner of the US patent office in Recently Gene Quinn of ipwatchdog. During the time Mr Duell and others of course were in office, it took the US Patent and Trademark Office 75 years to issue the first million patents.

The time span to issue the ninth million patents was only three and a half years. I guess Mr Duell was wrong. The world of intellectual property rights is not always easy to understand for laymen — and sometimes even for lawyers.

With technologies like these, which are very visible to everyone on the internet or on handheld or personal devices, an opinion about how worthy they are of being a granted patent is quickly made. Sometimes, even if the underlying principles are novel and inventive according to legal standards, the public might consider them to be obvious or at least to be only tiny advances in the technology according to the prior art known to them, and thus not worth a patent.

However, for the companies involved — either as applicants, as possible infringers or as competitors deprived of a feature to include in their products — a lot of money is at stake.

Sometimes also pride and prestige are endangered by the fate of patent applications. Consequently, fierce battles can arise from patent applications, regardless of whether the inventions are seemingly small and even more so if the protected subject matters are exposed to the public in everyday life.

According to the corresponding local databases, the legal status regarding this patent or patent application is not consistent. In Finland opposition procedures are pending, while the patent is in force in the United Kingdom, France, Spain, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and — of all countries — Sweden.

Not surprisingly, however, the Federal Court has seemingly not discussed general patentability of technologies like this, since allowability was denied on the ground of lack of inventiveness over the N1 phone. So with the patent being in force in some countries and revoked in other countries, deciding the questions of patentability and allowability — mostly inventiveness — is obviously not an easy task, even if the public might consider these questions to be straightforward from their gut instinct.

In search of guidelines, on what gestures might be patentable, one can turn to the collection of decisions of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office. Therein two decisions can be found from this year which deal with gesture control of electronic devices, although with different outcomes.

Therefore, we learn nothing about the patentability of gestures as such, because the camera system utilized in the claims of this application contributes to the inventive step too. The Board rather notes: Since the camera-based system of D3 cannot provide the full functionality of the glove-based system of D1, it would not be obvious to the skilled person to replace the gloves and EM sensors of D1 by the camera based system of D3. The claimed subject-matter in that case is directed to recognize a drag gesture on a touch screen over text and to cut or delete the corresponding text.

The application under judgment deals with mathematical methods, which are excluded from patentability in Germany by law very similar to the corresponding Art. In the official head notes, the Federal Court says that mathematical methods are regarded as inventions only if they contribute to solving a specific technical problem by technical means.

Further, a mathematical method is only considered to be non-technical if — in connection with the claimed teaching — it does not relate to the specific application of natural forces. A sufficient relationship to a specific application of natural forces is only present if the mathematical method is used to determine — based on the available measured values — more reliable findings on the status of a plane, and if thereby an influence is exercised on the operation mode of the system that was used to determine this status.

With this decision, the Federal Court seems to allow patents on mathematical methods, if the operation of a technical system is involved. Also very recently, the Indian Patent Office has published updated guidelines on patentability of computer related inventions, showing a broad interpretation of section 3 k of the Indian Patents Act, which relates to software patents and computer related inventions. Consequently the patentability of programs was connected to an involvement of new hardware.

Thus a computer program was only available for patenting when the hardware showed features that made it different form a common place apparatus, in other words a general-purpose machine. The guidelines continue with listing certain indicators, of which only one needs to be positively answered in order to negate the exclusion from patentability.

The guidelines also contain illustrative examples for claims considered to be excluded from patentability and for claims considered to be not excluded from patentability. All in all, getting a patent in India for a computer implemented invention does seem to become easier under the new guidelines. However, there are no empirical values regarding the application of the guidelines by the Examiners, yet.

With the proliferation and ubiquity of handheld devices and touch screens, patents on such technologies might recede but other areas of intellectual property might rise, like mathematical methods and algorithms, which are often the foundation of computer-implemented inventions. And so in summary, there are still a lot of inventions that can be invented and patented. Since joining the U. Für Sex Anzeigen Info am redlight Zentrum.

Forced orga sex in opladen

Unfortunately, not many countries provide for licence of right. The European Patent Convention does not provide for L. There are approximately 20 countries which have this option. Among them are some important patent filing jurisdictions:. Since provisions of L. It can be filed at any time after grant of the patent or while the patent application is pending. That means that the patentee must grant a licence to anyone who wants one. The endorsement is registered and published.

As long as an exclusive licence is registered under the patent the declaration is not possible. Renewal fees falling due after the L. Other countries — besides the above four - who grant a fee reduction for L. The United Kingdom requires additionally that any opposition to the cancellation has been dealt with. This paper deals with preliminary injunctions PIs based on patents with a view towards European procedures. Also discussed are precautionary measures that a potential defendant in PI proceedings may take in order to avoid an injunction.

A patent proprietor who identifies an act infringing one or more of his patents, may have an interest that the infringement is stopped immediately. Such a patent proprietor will therefore seek immediate injunctive relief.

The injunctive relief may be permanent, but permanent injunctive relief is typically only granted after lengthy court proceedings on the merits of a case. In contrast, courts may, upon application by the patent proprietor, order injunctive relief in the form of a provisional measure.

In the European Union, provisional measures are mandatorily available in all member states. Provisional measures are regularly granted in preliminary injunction procedures.

There are two procedural possibilities, i. Naturally, when a defendant is injuncted and has to stop the act in question immediately, this may constitute a significant threat to his business. Some recommendations are given below. The purpose of this white paper is to introduce some points to keep in mind before and after filing an application in Japan. We will address the following matters: As we all know, we have heard of the common types of trademarks used today such as word or device trademarks.

Further, we know the widely discussed 3D trademarks, e. However, in the European Union most people have not heard of collective or certification trademarks, or are unsure of what to make of such trademarks.

The proprietor of a Community collective trademark can therefore only be an association of manufacturers, producers, suppliers of services, or traders and legal persons governed by public law. The special advantage of the collective trademark is the possibility of being an indication to designate the geographical origin of the goods and services.

This is in contrast to the regular, individual trademark which prevents an indication to a geographical origin, since this would be held as being descriptive.

The white paper is available as a PDF. Whether justified or not — that remains to be seen — there are concerns that the enforcement of unitary patents will be far slower, more expensive and more unpredictable than has been the case with patents in Germany up to now. Some sceptics are already advising their clients to avoid European patents and revert to national filings. Whether or not this makes sense will be briefly clarified here.

Is it really advisable to file nationally again within Europe? After all, the objective of this approach is to keep the German or other national infringement courts for litigation.

Once a European patent has been granted, the validity of the unitary patent can be requested for all states of the EU that have ratified the UPC up to that point, meaning those for which the UPC agreement and the EU regulation [1] are in effect.

This request must be submitted to the EPO - together with a translation [2] , at least for the time being - within one month following the mention of grant Art. But that is only an option. You will do this anyway if you only want protection for a few countries, since the unitary patent will only pay off if there are four or five countries or more, the exact number of countries depends on the office fees, which are still under discussion.

That is precisely what makes up the compulsory nature of the new court system. However, it is possible to choose to opt out under Art. You can declare before the Registry of the court that you wish to stay with the old court system.

And this can be done up to one month prior to the end of the transitional period pursuant to Art. And you can even declare this opt-out for European patent applications Art. This means you can still file an application! This webinar looks at the current state of the trademark renewal industry and its implications. What can you do to protect your company's bottom line? What does future of trademarks hold in 5, 10, even 15 years? The introduction of the European patent with unitary effect also known as the unitary patent enables patent holders to protect their inventions in 25 member states by filing a single patent application at the European Patent Office.

The procedure up to granting of the unitary patent remains the same as for regular European patents without unitary effect. After the patent is granted, there will be no need to validate it one by one in each country, making the whole procedure simpler and much less expensive.

Inventors will no longer have to comply with complex validation requirements that vary by jurisdiction, and most importantly, the introduction of the unitary patent will substantially lower translation costs in the participating Member States. Anybody, regardless of the country of origin, can opt for a unitary patent.

Applications for European patents can be filed in any language. However, if the application was not filed in English, German or French, a translation into one of the official languages of the EPO needs to be provided. This becomes the language in which the proceedings are conducted and in which the patent is granted. Also, before grant, translations of the claims into two other official languages other than the language of the proceedings have to be filed. This language regime remains the same for the unitary patent.

During a transitional period ranging from 6 to 12 years sooner if the European Council decides that high quality machine translations into all official languages of the Union are available on-line and free of charge, and terminates the transitional period unitary patents that were granted in French or German will need to be translated into English and the ones granted in English will have to be translated to another official language of the European Union.

It is important to stress that in this phase a translation to another official language of the Union has no legal effect and is for information purposes only.

Importance of choosing another official language of the Union comes only in the later stage in case of proceedings before the UPC.

In the event of a dispute relating to an alleged infringement of a unitary patent, the patent proprietor shall provide, at the request and the choice of an alleged infringer, a full translation of the unitary patent into an official language of either the participating Member State in which the alleged infringement took place or in which the alleged infringer is domiciled. In the event of a dispute related to a unitary patent, the patent proprietor shall provide, at the request of a competent court in the participating Member States, a full translation of the patent into the language used in the proceedings.

How does this affect you? Leon is a lawyer and a former partner at the Maslon law firm in Minneapolis. Leon is married, with four beautiful children, and one not so beautiful child.

He enjoys running, skiing, tennis and is known to have an irreverent sense of humor. What does future of patents hold in 5, 10, even 15 years? Join Jay and Leon as they discuss key trends in the patent arena. What are or should you be doing to prepare? Even though Jay and Leon don't have a magical crystal ball, their years' of experience in patents provide a sound foundation to draw from for industry trend analysis - and yes, a little speculation.

They will also draw from conversations held in 8 cities at the recently concluded Forum - The Future of IP and Technology Law Forum - where hundreds gathered to discuss these topics. The Government of Canada. Dennemeyer is looking forward to partner with the University and work together to the improvement of Intellectual Property in the area. We foresee more great projects to come in the near future and are grateful for the opportunity of working together with the prestigious University of Sharjah.

From left to right: Khalid Elkhabir Head of Patent Dept. Celebrating its continuous presence at INTA, Dennemeyer has had a special event prepared for its clients: The Dennemeyer pre-INTA sailing regatta, a sailing trip on the shores of Barcelona, was met by calm seas and fair winds. After the sailing regatta, Dennemeyer and its guests continued the fun Saturday evening at the Boo Beach Club where everybody had the opportunity to network over delicious barbeque and excellent drinks.

Space, the final frontier! Well, not anymore, because thanks to a group of 6 9 th grade students from Brasov, Romania, we will be able to survive in space. Not very soon, but give them some time and they will make it possible. Heosphoros, the Romanian team, has placed on the 1 st place for kids in the 9 th grade, winning with their space station located in the Lagrangian point L4. That is why Dennemeyer has decided to support their project and sponsor their trip and presentation to St Louis, Missouri.

After wrapping up the final of our IP Christmas Quiz championship yesterday, we are thrilled to congratulate the winner: He wins the iPad Mini with an impressive score of Congratulations to our players for their impressive achievements — we are proud to announce that the quiz created a total donation amount of Beside the money donated through the Dennemeyer IP Christmas Quiz, we also contributed to charitable causes in Romania: Dennemeyer IP Solutions Romania donated Altogether the Dennemeyer Group donated more than Thanks to all who helped us make it possible!

Addressing a variety of activities ranging from strategic management to IP valuation, the IP Quick Check attributes your organization an individual score and compares it to the average score of other companies. Last year December was for giving. Thanks to you, our donation campaign for Doctors Without Borders became a real success with more than correct answers and more than Euro donated for a good cause. This year our ambition is to even surpass that result.

All you have to do is log in, choose the Christmas Quiz mode and play the patent or trademark qualifiers - depending on your professional background. The two separate championships will end middle of December and the Top Five of both categories will automatically enter the final round.

The winner of the final will receive an iPad as a personal reward, next to the certainty that no other player has contributed more to our donation campaign. Have fun and share the care this December. Secondly because Dennemeyer has identified the continent as a region where clients are reconsidering their level of protection in IP to plan for anticipated economic growth.

Dennemeyer Africa is capable of offering a whole bundle of IP related legal and management services as well as software solutions covering the entire continent. The range of services includes legal advice on branding in Africa and South Africa, patent and trademark searching, drafting, filing, prosecution, recordals, annuities and renewals, litigation, commercial IP, advice on pharmaceuticals labeling and packaging as well as IP portfolio management.

Van Zyl is based in Europe for the sake of providing easy face to face contact and is available to travel to our clients or meet them at any of our offices in Luxembourg, Frankfurt or Munich. For further information about the new practice group please contact Christophe van Zyl. In addition to the presentations, we exchanged views during round-table discussions. Our thanks go out to all our guests for making this event an inspiration.

You can get two of the presentations here. Check out the gallery for more snapshots from the event. Guests were offered a presentation about the exposed counterfeit goods and they had fun discovering a great diversity of reproductions. The tour was followed by an informal standing reception with hors d'oeuvres and drinks and proved to be a great start for this year's Annual Meeting.

Check out the gallery to discover more about our evening. The lecture was held by Ms. She holds an M. In her presentation she outlined that businesses active in industries in which intellectual property rights play an important role - especially where SEPs are involved - should expect close scrutiny from Chinese agencies as they continue to develop in this complex area.

The lecture was followed by an excited discussion among the roughly 30 attendees — as well as by cool drinks. Further complementary evening lectures will follow and be announced at www.

For further question, please contact: The field mouse inhabits a wide range of habitats including grasslands and marshes, pastures and gardens, and urban areas. As a consequence of a decision of the Bundespatentgericht Federal Patent Court of Germany from September with the keyword "field mouse bait station" it has also found its way to the Bundesgerichtshof German Federal Supreme Court.

Bundespatentgericht recently confirmed the rejection of a utility model application to protect a method of catching mice with a bait station due to the fact that methods are not protectable as utility models under German Law. Utility models consist of an exclusive right granted for an invention that is similar to a patent right, but its main purpose is to achieve a faster registration than that of a patent by replacing examination and grant by simple registration.

In return, its lifespan is shortened. Not all countries offer this type of protection and their scope differs widely. From a historical point of view, the protection of utility models developed as a right parallel to the protection of patents. For further information please contact: Traditionally, it has been difficult to restore IP rights in Japan.

There have been almost no cases where restoration was admitted after a failure to meet a deadline. However, it is still not clear whether it has actually become easier to reinstate lost IP rights or not. According to the revised rules relating to restoration of IP rights, failure to meet the deadlines of the following procedures can be saved:. As mentioned above, there needs to be a justifiable reason for not complying with the time limit in order for the lapsed IP rights to be restored.

In the Guidelines for Restoration published by the JPO, examples in which restoration is admitted or not admitted are exemplified. Whether the reason for missing a deadline is a justifiable reason depends on whether the reason was predictable. If the reason is predictable it cannot be justifiable. That is, a lapsed IP right cannot be restored when the reason for missing the deadline was predictable. Taking the absence of the representative due to scheduled hospitalisation, it seems that, according to the Guidelines, the JPO will regard it as scheduled hospitalization if the person could inform his absence to someone in advance.

That is to say, it is regarded as unpredictable only when the person representative is suddendly admitted to hospital and had no chance to inform his absence to any other person.

In this case, the representative had two days to inform his absence to the applicant, but the EPO admitted restoration under this condition. The guidelines illustrate in which cases the restoration will or will not be admitted as follows: As mentioned above, restoration cannot be admitted if wrong data was inputted and no substantial measure was taken.

This means that if the deadline was missed because of human error, such as incorrect data inputting, without substantial measures such as double checking, it would be impossible to restore the IP right. On the other hand, in Japan it seems that an isolated mistake in a normally satisfactory system will not be a ground for restoration because it is required that there was a specific situation making it impossible to avoid the mistake, according to the Guidelines.

The example of the specific situation listed in the guidelines is so special that the hurdle for the request of restoration to be admitted seems to be still high in Japan.

For example, a responsible person suddenly becomes ill in bed and cannot work for a while red period inFigure 1 and his colleague could know this fact and thus the colleague could know the risk of missing a deadline.

In this case, the restoration cannot be admitted unless the colleague tried to avoid missing the deadline accordingly even if the other requirements necessary measures were taken in advance and the request for the restoration was filed in an appropriate period are met.

The JPO states that the restoration may be admitted if there is a justifiable reason for not complying with the time limit and said justifiable reason can be considered similar to the due care criteria adopted in the EPO.

However, according to the examples listed in the guidelines, it seems to be stricter in Japanese practice than in the European practice for the restoration to be admitted. Therefore, it is necessary to take care of deadlines in a specifically careful manner.

He is active in the area of intellectual property law since and he is qualified as a M. His areas of expertise are chemistry, pharmaceutics, lasers spectroscopics. You can contact Mr. To better satisfy the needs of its clients and expand its workforce, Dennemeyer France is happy to announce its move to a bigger office. We are also happy to inform you that we have created two generic email addresses to allow you to contact us more easily:. For any new business inquiries do not hesitate to contact us.

Notre nouvelle adresse est:. Businesses active in industries where intellectual property rights play an important role - especially where Standard Essential Patents SEPs are involved - should expect close scrutiny from Chinese agencies as they continue to develop their approach in this complex area. Yuan Li will summarize the key enforcement activities of competition law in China, particularly focus on SEPs and how they relate various issues.

If this issue is of interest for you, join us at our Munich office. The lecture is followed by a drinks reception. You are growing rapidly — and so are we. In light of our global expansion, our Munich offices have become too small for our needs.

As of Tuesday, July 19 , we will be serving our clients from a new location. Our new address is: We kindly request you update our contact details accordingly. Our telephone and fax numbers stay unchanged. Are you interested in a personal appointment? Par ailleurs, le Dr. Our patent law firm is on the right track, which is also reflected by our strong growth and our ongoing global expansion.

Köllner holds a Ph. His areas of expertise include physics, physical chemistry, optics, lasers, biotechnology, medical devices and software. Köllner has authored and co-authored numerous publications on the economic and legal side of the IP system, including a handbook on the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

A few years ago, Köllner correctly predicted the failure of the German patent funds, at a time when there was still much hype around these funds IAM.

Köllner has extensive experience in performing hundreds of due diligence investigations for smaller clients, investors and Fortune companies, in particular for venture capital investments. Köllner can be contacted at: It was a good opportunity to get to know the next generation of IP experts that will join the market in the upcoming months. The championship ended last month and he succeeded in defeating his anonymous opponent in the Final Battle on Monday, June 27th.

Enjoy summer with us! After short presentations on current IP trends held in German language our complimentary workshops offer you a good opportunity to discuss the following topics:.

After the presentations there will be plenty of time for discussions, networking and cool drinks — with a fantastic view. Exclusively for summer , Dennemeyer continues its high demand webinar series. These webinars provide the tools and information for you to save key resources — your time and money. Join the webinar s to question the experts directly and find out what fellow intellectual property professionals are asking.

Learn more about the five webinars in July and August and register today. Many players have used their superpowers to test their knowledge about patents and trademarks and were having fun playing the online version of the popular Dennemeyer IP Quiz Championships.

In the end, the two leading players competed against each other to win the prize. He will receive his iPad in Chicago soon. Thanks to all the other players from all over the IP world! Stay tuned for our next challenge — this was just the beginning. Pourquoi sous-traiter ce processus? Les points importants de ce webinaire comprennent:. At INTA it was almost impossible not see the Dennemeyer booth - the biggest and highest booth of all and placed in the very center of the exhibition area.

Watch the clip with the interview and shots of the impressive booth here. Are you a law firm that has been using the same process for years? Curious on how you can save time, resources, and ultimately cost? In this webinar, Leon Steinberg discusses an outsourced model to record transfers and the associated cost savings.

Why outsource this process? You can greatly reduce internal costs; and if you are a law firm, greatly increase profits. Watch the recorded webinar today. Luxembourg-based leading intellectual property management service provider Dennemeyer Group reaffirms its commitment to the European market by relocating their Bracknell office to Reading, United Kingdom. Reading continues to score high on a number of key economic indicators such as economic contribution per worker and number of businesses per capita: As of Thursday, June 9, , our Reading office's address is: By optimizing our presence in the UK, we will serve as a direct point of contact for UK companies, corporations and law firms, addressing their IP needs and providing specialized advice.

This is a continuation of the global expansion strategy of Dennemeyer Group and a strong commitment to the UK, which was initiated over 40 years ago. Dennemeyer set up their first overseas office in Stockport, UK in and established a team which handled the first computer-based patent annuity payments in the world.

Cela ne va pas changer. Readers will probably know that an opposition against a European Patent can be filed within nine months after grant. This will not change. Readers will probably also know that the opposition procedure can be quite lengthy so that years might pass before a decision is rendered by the first instance.

There are two major factors which shall contribute to speeding up the opposition procedure. Firstly, contrary to the former practice, extensions of time limits will be granted only in exceptional cases with duly substantiated requests. Secondly, when communicating the reply to an opposition from the patent proprietor to the opponent, the Opposition Division will at the same time prepare the next action.

This next action will normally be the issuance of summons to oral proceedings. For further information and help, please feel free to contact ckoester dennemeyer-law. First of all, it is important to note that this would be the first time in the history of the EU that a Member State leaves the EU, thus it is still not clear how this would actually work on a practical level. The Member State should notify the EU Council and both parties will conclude an agreement setting the arrangements and further relation between the country and the Union.

After the Member State gives notice of its withdrawal, there is a two-year term for the treaties of the Union to cease their effects, unless the parties reach an agreement before the two-year term. However, this term might be extended by both parties. Regarding copyright protection, a Brexit would not have any major consequences, since copyright protection is not fully harmonized in the EU as it is. Further, copyright protection is mainly territorial and the UK is member to several International Treaties that cover copyright, thus they it would keep applying their national laws based on international minimum standards of protection.

First, it is worth highlighting that the protection of national Patents as well as national Trademark registrations would of course remain unchanged. However, obtaining UK approval for the agreement on a Unified Patent Court might prove to be a challenge, since a Brexit would very likely slow down the implementation of the UPC. Further, supplementary protection certificates for medicinal products are regulated by EU regulation N. An applicant could of course still file an EU application but would additionally have to file a separate national UK application.

Moreover, according to Article Furthermore, a Brexit would necessitate transitional provisions for current EU Trademark and Designs registrations for converting these rights into national UK rights, if the owner wishes to maintain protection of such rights in the UK. Further, it would have to be decided if their rights once converted into national UK rights will keep their EU filing date.

For now, IP owners should simply be aware that if a Brexit happens -they might face consequences with regard to the protection of their UK IP rights and that they may further have to take additional measures if they want to maintain their IP rights. Until a decision has been made, we can of course not give comprehensive advice on how to proceed, but can only point out the potentially controversial issues.

We will of course look into these issues in more detail once the corresponding decisions have been made. Download the PDF article here. This was a great opportunity for our team and clients to get together and enjoy food, drinks and a beautiful show. We kicked off the INTA meeting with a fun and adventurous evening observing the alligators, bobcats, raccoons and other wild animals. Guests had the opportunity to enjoy the natural attractions while experiencing the excitement of being on an airboat.

This was the perfect way to relax and have fun before starting INTA. Dennemeyer will have a booth at the event. The Dennemeyer Group organizes a complementary workshop for everyone interested in the future Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court. Our expert speaker will share the latest developments with you and present some interesting case studies.

After the workshop, we invite you to further discuss this topic with your colleagues and network over a drink.

Did you have to read that twice? On April 14, , Dr. In this webinar you will discover three key items:. Watch the recorded, on-demand webinar today. Simply watch this short webinar to discover how. Besides we have prepared a special cinematic highlight for you — of course not without a decent amount of popcorn!

After the show test your IP knowledge in our daily Dennemeyer IP Quiz championships and win exclusive prizes for your family at home. If you would like to arrange a meeting with our experts or a demonstration of our software tools or online portals before the conference, please contact us at inta dennemeyer.

Starting April 11 th your knowledge power will be tested in two parallel rounds one for each category and the two leading players of Patents and Trademarks will compete in the Final Battle, which will be a combination of both categories, at the end of May. Win the battle and the iPad is yours! Come and play at: Since he was the first US President to visit this mother country of cigars and rum.

However, the arguably most powerful man on earth was only an opening act. On 25 March, the Rolling Stones played their first ever concert in Havana. One takeaway is that US Presidents come and go - but the Stones stay forever. Another crystal clear message is that Cuba is opening-up. Exporting companies should therefore start rethinking about their Intellectual Property strategy for the Cuban market.

The first question is of course which protective IP rights are available in Cuba. We at Dennemeyer have long-standing contacts with our colleagues in Cuba and are looking forward to play a part in the improvement of the economic relations with Cuba, with our focus in this regard being of course Intellectual Property. But we will also keep monitoring other developments on Cuba.

Rumor has it that Sir Paul McCartney will be the next music legend to pay a visit to the Island for a gig. Check out our webinar to find out more about the upcoming changes to trademark protection in Cuba and Iran. For businesses today it is critical to safeguard sensitive data against the growing number of online and natural threats.

For data security, the operative words are confidence and transparency. Dennemeyer remains dedicated to security and takes extensive technical measures to protect client data when managing intellectual property portfolios. Due to the importance of the topic Dennemeyer will keep on publishing news and articles on data security and keep you informed.

In this role he will also be the contact person for all media inquiries. The mainstays of professional services and software solutions for the management of patents and trademarks will in future be supplemented in particular by business ventures including consultancy and seminars on intellectual property. Previously he had worked as an independent journalist for media including the Bavarian broadcaster Bayerischer Rundfunk and the Munich-based broadsheet Süddeutsche Zeitung.

After graduating in economic and social history and communication science, Sebastian Deck trained as an editor at the German School of Journalism in Munich, combining this with postgraduate studies in Practical Journalism at Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich. The workshops took place in Warsaw in the Sheraton hotel. At the first part of the workshops, Ms. Afterwards, participants were divided into two groups representing two different companies interested in extending their current activity, but their peaceful existence in the European market was not possible without prior coexistence agreement conclusion.

Although at the beginning it seemed impossible to reach an agreement in this regard, we are happy to inform that after a long and difficult discussion both groups managed to sign a coexistence agreement satisfactory for both sides.

We received positive feedback from participants who especially appreciated the possibility to actively participate in the discussion. The Forums feature panel discussions and explore and discuss best practices for managing IP costs. Hear real world experiences from leading companies on how they have managed their IP budgets. These complimentary events are approved for 3. Space at each location is very limit. Learn more and reserve your spot today.

This move signals the rapid growth experienced over the past year. The new address is W. Madison, Suite , Chicago IL This growth is projected to continue throughout Should you have any questions on the relocation, please feel free to contact us. We look forward to seeing and serving you at the improved office surroundings. The new legislation enters into force on 23 March In order to avoid inadequate scope of protection, the owners of the above categorized trademarks have been given a possibility to file a declaration to the Office by 24 September , specifying the exact goods and services intended to be covered by that application.

If no Declaration is filed before the deadline, those trademarks will be deemed to cover only the goods and services described in the literal meaning of the class heading. Please do not hesitate to contact us at: Do you know the costs of publishing a European patent validation in Morocco?

Since the beginning of March , European patents can be validated in Morocco according to the agreement between the European Patent Organisation and the government of the Kingdom of Morocco. But the exact fees for the publication of a validation have not been published by the EPO until now. As leading provider of professional services and solutions for the IP sector, Dennemeyer has found out the publication fee prior to its official publication.

As a result of the Iran nuclear deal signed last year, economic sanctions on the Middle-Eastern country have been lifted on January 16, Governmental authorities and industry organizations were quick to welcome this step in opening up the Iranian economy to international trade and investment. For example, the German-Iranian Chamber of Commerce and the European-Iranian Business Alliance released statements expressing their hope that business relations with Iran will be flourishing again in the future.

With the start of a hopefully new and long-lasting period of good business relations with Iran, exporting companies should start rethinking about their intellectual property strategy for the Iranian market.

The first question is of course which protective IP rights are available in Iran. We at Dennemeyer have a long-standing relationship with our colleagues in Iran. Furthermore, we have experienced that centralized formalities procedures, especially with regards to notarization, can help clients move forward their IP projects almost everywhere and in fact in Iran.

During the sanctions, we helped clients, some of them U. With these recent developments in mind, we are looking forward to playing our part in normalizing the economic relations with Iran, with our focus being of course the field of intellectual property.

For further information and help, please feel free to contact me via e-mail: In December we pledged to donate 1 euro for every correct answer submitted in our IP Quiz. Thanks to the overwhelming response we received from players, we have made a donation totaling 15, euros to the German office of Doctors Without Borders. The donated amount was handed over on January 12, in the presence of Dr. Doctors Without Borders was represented by Andrea Stegmeir, who shared with us her first-hand experience helping those in need in Angola.

Doctors Without Borders is an international humanitarian organisation providing assistance to vulnerable communities, victims of natural disasters and armed conflicts.

Every year Doctors Without Borders sends around 2, doctors, nurses, logisticians, water-and-sanitation experts, administrators and other professionals to work alongside approximately 31, locally hired staff. Together they run medical projects in more than 60 countries around the world. The organisation spent million euros on humanitarian activities in ; performing over 8 million outpatient consultations, aiding over thousand severely malnourished children, and performing over 81, major surgical interventions.

We are truly overwhelmed by the amazing response we received from our fellow industry professionals, and would like to thank everybody who played the IP Quiz over December. Below are 12 costly and commonly shared trade mark misunderstandings. Not all trade marks are created equal. To evaluate the strength of a proposed mark, it is critical to understand that trade marks are viewed within a spectrum of distinctiveness.

A trade mark may be compartmentalised into four main categories: On one end of the distinctiveness spectrum, generic terms are common words that name goods or services; these are incapable of functioning as trade marks.

Registration of a generic term would prevent others from rightfully utilising the common word and serve no source identification function. Moving up the band, a mark is considered merely descriptive if the primary significance of the term immediately describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, feature, function or purpose of the specifically delineated goods or services. Although adopting a descriptive mark simplifies marketing efforts by conveying features of the product or service to the purchaser, it also presents hurdles at both the registration and enforcement stages.

Common examples of descriptive marks include Arthriticare for arthritis medication , Car Freshener for car deodoriser , and World Book for encyclopedias. Suggestive trade marks indirectly refer to the goods or services with which they are associated. The mark requires an intellectual leap, imagination, thought or perception in order for the consumer to reach a conclusion as to the nature of the goods or services. For example, Coppertone for tanning lotion and Chicken Of The Sea for tuna are considered suggestive marks.

Traditionally, marketing professionals prefer suggestive marks due to their inherent ability to evoke ideas in the minds of consumers, suggesting the nature of the goods or services offered.

By subconsciously linking a mark to a product or service, this approach enhances brand awareness while reducing costs associated with marketing campaigns. However, a fine line separates descriptive and suggestive trade marks.

What a marketer may deem suggestive, the examining attorney may find descriptive. D Arbitrary or fanciful: Finally, arbitrary or fanciful marks are afforded the broadest scope of protection. An arbitrary mark is a word that exists but has no meaning when used on the product itself, whereas a fanciful mark is a word not recognised by the dictionary.

For instance, the marks Pepsi and Exxon are deemed fanciful because they have no meaning or common usage. Alternatively, Apple used in connection with computers is considered an arbitrary mark because it is a known term used in an uncommon fashion.

For instance, other companies may own common law rights that compromise the value and availability of a trade mark. Common law rights arise from actual use of a mark in commerce even absent federal registration. Although federal registration affords additional rights that are unavailable under the common law scheme, rights still develop without registration.

These limited rights are cabined to the geographic area in which the mark is used. Within that specific territory, rights are based on the priority of use of a mark. Occasionally, a federal registrant may not be the first user of a trade mark in a specific territory; therefore, an unregistered prior user may enjoy superior rights. Thus, when applying for a trade mark, even a company with common law rights may file an opposition based on first use in commerce. Further, if the USPTO has deemed a trade mark cancelled or abandoned, that designation does not ensure that your agency may use the mark without complications.

A mark may be deemed cancelled or abandoned for a bundle of reasons. As stated above, trade mark rights continue at the common law level if a company continues to employ their mark in commerce.

There are many sources in addition to the USPTO, such as common law sources, state trade mark registries and industry publications. Read the full article as PDF.

Our international team of patent and trademark attorneys is admitted to practice before the Patent and Trademark Offices of several additional European and non-European jurisdictions e.

As a well-reputed and reliable intellectual property partner for multinational corporations and small and medium sized companies across industries for more than 55 years, the jury has recognized our pan-European footprint and our ability to deliver accurate and top-tier legal services to our European and non-European clients.

The proposed reformed rules for Community trademarks are currently under discussion by the European Parliament. The Community trademark CTM was created 15 years ago and has remained substantially unchanged. A draft text for the reform was prepared and in April the European Parliament, Commission and Council reached an agreement. The changes are being reviewed by the parliament again, but substantial changes to the last version of the text are not likely.

The reform is expected to come into force in the second quarter of All country members of the EU will then have three years to transpose the changes. Trademark applicants and the attorneys representing them will have to get used to a new terminology. The applicants for trademarks in only one class will now pay less: However, the costs will now be higher if a trademark applicant wants to protect its trademark in three classes: Concerning the conditions of registrability of a trademark in the EU, the concept of graphical representation has been removed from the conditions of an EUTM.

This opens the doors to the protection of non-conventional trademarks, in particular sounds and smells.

In accordance with OHIM and other national offices, the UK Intellectual Property Office IPO held that listing the headings for a class amounted to claiming protection for the entire alphabetical list of goods and services in that class, even though not all of them were explicitly listed and some were not even covered by the literal meaning of the class headings.

Deviating from the previous jurisdiction, the CJEU decided in this case that goods or services for which protection is sought must be identified with sufficient clarity. It held that on this basis alone, one must be able to determine the extent of the protection conferred by a trademark.

Moreover, it established that some class headings can indeed properly be used to identify goods and services, as they themselves are sufficiently clear and precise. However, for other class headings, this is not applicable. When using class headings, the applicant can indicate that it wants the registration to cover all the goods and services included in the full alphabetical list if it wishes. If it does not wish to include all the goods and services, it is obliged to specify the particular goods and services it seeks protection for.

In the scope of this reform, the decision was made that all trademark owners that filed a CTM application before June 22 will have six months following the entry into force of the new regulations to file a declaration at OHIM stating for which goods and services under the class heading they want to obtain protection.

Trademark owners must proceed with this modification and declaration as soon as possible. The additional protection potentially provided by the modification of the list of goods and services will not be retrospective. Owners that modify their list of goods and services in these conditions will not be able to prevent any third party from using a trademark in relation to goods and services where and to the extent that:.

For a French trademark attorney, the obligation on the countries to adopt administrative cancellation proceedings is new. At the moment, in France—unlike in Germany and the UK—there is no administrative proceeding to act against a trademark registration on the basis of its non-use. France, and other similar countries, will now have to adopt a new administrative proceeding.

This new procedure must be implemented in the next seven years. Also, counterfeit goods-in-transit will now be considered as infringing the trademark of the owner. Click here to read the full article. We wish to inform you that recently we saw a sharp increase of fraudulent messages posing as coming from Dennemeyer, requesting information or wire transfer of certain amounts to third-party bank accounts.

While the message, sender and e-mail signature may look identical to legitimate communication you received previously from us, the actual reply-to address does not belong to the sender. Additionally, there might be spelling mistakes in addresses such as de n emeyer or dennemeyer r. Unfortunately this is not an isolated issue in corporate communications, however it is the first time we have been affected by it. More information about such scams, and ways to counteract them can be found under:.

As far as our communications are concerned, we ask you to call your Dennemeyer contact immediately in case of any suspicion. We are doing everything we can to stop these fraudulent e-mails, however there is no technical way to overcome this issue.

We trust your vigilance. E-mail fraud is a serious issue that affects a large number of corporations. In order to avoid being a target of cybercrime, please take all the necessary actions to secure your IT infrastructure.

Charlie is surprised by the call from his procurement department asking about the trademark renewal service. He has been working with the same service provider for years and he is happy with their performance.

Plus, Charlie is paying for an unneeded level of renewal service. Charlie feels, well, embarrassed. This webinar dives into the cost components of a trademark renewal and breaks down actual renewal invoices to reveal what companies are actually paying. After this webinar, you will be poised to evaluate your trademark renewal costs. The Official Fee is charged by each Patent and Trademark Office to renew the trademark and does not vary by provider.

The Agent Fee is highly variable for two reasons. First, each provider has a set of jurisdictions that they pay directly, thus eliminating agent fees for that jurisdiction.

Second, even if two providers both pay through an agent in a jurisdiction, the fee can vary significantly. The Service Fee is the stated fee the renewal provider charges for conducting the service. This fee varies based on the nature of the renewal service and varies by portfolio size.

Typically, people focus on the service fee. Interestingly, other charges can have a larger impact on the renewal cost. Dennemeyer provides tiered service options that you can choose from regardless of portfolio size. Your choice to match your needs. Many renewal providers mark up their exchange rates above the prevailing interbank exchange rate. These can vary wildly from one renewal provider to the next. Typically, this markup is to cover currency acquisition costs.